Inflammatory Markers and Risk of Hip Fracture in Older White Women: The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures †

Abstract Hip fractures are the most devastating consequence of osteoporosis and impact 1 in 6 white women leading to a 2-3 fold increased mortality risk in the first year. Despite evidence of inflammatory markers in the pathogenesis of osteoporosis, few studies have examined their effect on hip fracture. To determine if high levels of inflammation increase hip fracture risk and explore mediation pathways, a case-cohort design nested in a cohort of 4709 white women from the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures was used. A random sample of 1171 women was selected as the subcohort (mean age 80.1 ± 4.2 years) plus the first 300 women with incident hip fracture. Inflammatory markers interleukin-6 (IL-6) and soluble receptors (SR) for IL-6 (IL-6 SR) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF SR1 and TNF SR2) were measured and participants were followed for a median (interquartile range) of 6.3 (3.7, 6.9) years. In multivariable models, the hazard ratio (HR) of hip fracture for women in the highest inflammatory marker level (quartile 4) was 1.64 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-2.48, p trend=0.03) for IL-6 and 2.05 (95% CI, 1.35-3.12, p trend <0.01) for TNF SR1 when compared with women in the lowest level (quartile 1). Among women with 2 and 3-4 inflammatory markers in the highest quartile, the HR of hip fracture was 1.51 (95% CI, 1.07-2.14) and 1.42 (95% CI, 0.87-2.31) compared with women with 0-1 marker(s) in the highest quartile (p trend = 0.03). After individually adjusting for 7 potential mediators, cystatin-C (a biomarker of renal function) and bone mineral density (BMD) attenuated HRs among women with the highest inflammatory burden by 20% and 15%, respectively, suggesting a potential mediating role. Older white women with high inflammatory burden are at increased risk of hip fracture in part due to poor renal function and low BMD

Adverse reactions and drug-drug interactions in the management of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis

The pharmacological management of disease should involve consideration of the balance between the beneficial effects of treatment on outcome and the probability of adverse effects. The aim of this review is to explore the risk of adverse drug reactions and drug–drug interactions with treatments for postmenopausal osteoporosis. We reviewed evidence for adverse reactions from regulatory documents, randomized controlled trials, pharmacovigilance surveys, and case series. Bisphosphonates are associated with gastrointestinal effects, musculoskeletal pain, and acute-phase reactions, as well as, very rarely, atrial fibrillation, atypical fracture, delayed fracture healing, osteonecrosis of the jaw, hypersensitivity reactions, and renal impairment. Cutaneous effects and osteonecrosis of the jaw are of concern for denosumab (both very rare), though there are no pharmacovigilance data for this agent yet. The selective estrogen receptor modulators are associated with hot flushes, leg cramps, and, very rarely, venous thromboembolism and stroke. Strontium ranelate has been linked to hypersensitivity reactions and venous thromboembolism (both very rare) and teriparatide with headache, nausea, dizziness, and limb pain. The solidity of the evidence base depends on the frequency of the reaction, and causality is not always easy to establish for the very rare adverse reactions. Drug–drug interactions are rare. Osteoporosis treatments are generally safe and well tolerated, though they are associated with a few very rare serious adverse reactions. While these are a cause for concern, the risk should be weighed against the benefits of treatment itself, i.e., the prevention of osteoporotic fracture. <br/

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present